hypothesis:

‘ a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.’

The following is an hypothesis of events, potential, to the outcome of the United States Mid-term elections: November 6, 2018:

As portrayed in the first part of this essay titled: November Seven-th , the global situation is tenuous at best as several nations elect, to government, political parties with right-leaning, conservative, and ultra-conservative, platforms and agenda. The scope and breadth of reason for this current trend are too complicated to clearly express their detail, in just a few lines. One need only be attentive to daily news broadcast to have a reasonable understanding to grasp the validity of general statements made henceforth in this essay.

Leading up to election day, November 6, much is occurring in the United States congressional, senate, and gubernatorial state, election campaigns to amplify, even louder, the differences between democrat, republican, and independent member camps, since the inauguration of President Trump, January, 2017.

White, republican candidates becoming increasing embolden to dog-whistle the race card against their Black-American opponents especially in the Florida and Georgia gubernatorial races. The president’s insistent rallying of his political base with incendiary, contradicting and abusive rhetoric pointed to his political, and mainstream media opponents. To the level as to incite one of his supporters to mail pipe bombs to senior members, past president, news organizations, and business icons associated with the Democratic party or deemed to support a liberal agenda.

Compounding this increasingly flammable and volatile situation, across the United States, is the matter of illegal immigration, security of the southern border, and most recently, a Caravan of Latin American migrants purportedly seven thousand, plus, strong making its way through Mexico, to the United States. The republican party candidates, assisted by FOX NEWS, FOX and Friends, FOX Business, and other editorial programs of FOX, have unanimously, seized upon this issue, inflating the matter to a state of hysteria in the minds of constituents, and viewing audience, respectively; and whom of course, are the same demographic that elected Trump to Office and fill his rally stadiums.

The crescendo to all this bellicose, from all sides of the political spectrum, and those factions that support them, is to be heard most stridently November 7th, with the finality of the voting process sheds light on what comes next.

It can be reasonable to suggest: no matter the final distribution of Republicans to Democrats seats for either the House of Congress, or Senate: there will be significant upset and accusations of wrong doing that renders an outcome of the casting of votes, by they who are dissatisfied with the outcome.

With the mainstream media doing the reporting of the election, their reputation for impartiality already tainted, preceding the election, they will be deemed bias if the Democrats take any majority in the race.

If the Republicans hold to their pre-election majority; Trump given a clear mandate and all to be expected second term at 2020; a conservative majority bench in the Supreme Court; Democrats will essential be rendered non-existent and impudent to rule by Trump for the foreseeable future.

So either scenario will likely call for recounts, accusations of vote tampering, voter suppression, etc.; and not to forget mention of Russian influence.

No matter: there will definitely be violence of varying order of magnitude.

If violence escalates to an extreme level resulting in high death counts, and damage and loss of property; Trump may be obliged/willing/tempted to institute measures for Marshall Law to be put into effect, possibly, even before newly elected members can be sworn into Office.

This would provide him the perfect opportunity to suspend habeas corpus, rendering him free of constitutional limits. Trump could execute a coupe of the United States, rendering it a dictatorship with little to no resistance by members of his Cabinet, Department of Justice, Congress, Senate, and most critically: the Supreme Court! It would be a pivotal moment in United States history, and degree to which democratic patriotism truly exists. But, most assuredly, a major civil battle would ensue.

In conclusion, only time’s passage will render a path to history’s making; it can only be hoped that civil disorder, and potential for chaos are condition of last resort.

Could this definition not be applied to the 45th President of the United States: Donald J. Trump?

Even long before Trump pronounced his candidacy, he was portrayed as one whose achievements in business, finance, and personal life, bellied all sense of reason, justification, and rationality in light of the norms most professionals, and the general public of all strata, have been accustomed to believe.

Since his official inauguration, he has successfully pursued the implementation of a significant portion of his electoral platform promises, be it through executive orders, to the more recent contentious matter: with the support of a Republican Congress and Senate, to nominate and approve Brat Kavanaugh as the ninth Supreme Court Judge solidifying a conservative weighted Court Bench for decades to come. All this with no seemingly clear and comprehensive plan or strategy, or so it is thought.

Again, since his official inauguration, the focus of the official, Democrat opposition in both the House, the Senate, and the broader mainstream media, with the exception of FOX News Channel, have set their ambitions to find means to impeach Trump on a variety of charges stemming from influence of Russian meddling and collusion by senior members of his 2016 campaign team; tax evasion and avoidance hallmarked by his reluctance to release his personal and business prior year tax returns; and personal sex scandal with a porn-star and other women. Their collective goal, at minimum, being to conjure enough suspicion and negative accusation on these contentious issues, unresolved though they may be prior to the Mid-term election of November 6, 2018, will embolden Democrats, independents and non-affiliate members of the public to take back either or both, the Senate and House of Congress, to enable the pursuance of impeachment and, ideally, repealing of legislation of regulations enacted through executive orders.

Is it possible those of all stripes who have voiced their concern, and opposition, over the measures taken, to date, by the Trump Administration, domestically, and possibly more critically, on matters of foreign policy and national security, are being measurably, and strategically, mislead?

An eye-opening encounter with a talk given to a predominately white, middle to upper class, right-leaning audience of elderly, men and women by Victor Davis Hanson, the Wayne and Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, Fresno [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAz6o4bUIA&feature=share], wherein he details the conditions that led to the electing of a president, unlike any of his predecessors, as is Donald J. Trump. But, possibly more importantly, the identifying and detailing of the strategy to be employed by his Administration to intentionally respond to those conditions on both the domestic and international stage.

The title to this strategy: Principled Realism.

Principled Realism is a national security paper authored by H. R. McMaster, former National Security Adviser, recently replaced by John Bolton, published in December, 2017.

The symbolism of a change to a policy that now embraces our values was richly expressed by U.S. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart: “We will no longer have to witness the embarrassing spectacle of an American president doing the wave at a baseball game with a ruthless dictator.”

“Idealism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to advance American values by fomenting freedom and democracy throughout the world. The ultimate goal of Idealism is to bring about a just and peaceful world by ending tyrannies. In the idealist view, the United States should engage in humanitarian missions, military interventions, and nation building, to advance this goal. Idealists believe that U.S. foreign policy should not be determined by what is best for the United States, but by what is, morally, the right thing to do.

In contrast, Realism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to secure America’s national interest. Realists believe that moral principles are incompatible with the protection of our national interest. Interests come before values, and U.S. foreign policy should set aside moral considerations, and focus on whatever works.”[http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]

Trump’s Administration strategy as detailed in McMaster’s published policy paper is neither of these two, previously held foreign policy objectives.. No longer will the United States foreign policies and/or interventions be premised, or measured, on the historic strategy of being the global watchdog and purveyor of democratic tendencies, but rather, on the practical approach to international developments focusing on their direct impact on the economic and national security interests and concerns of the American Peoples, solely.

“Principled realism opens up diplomatic possibilities anchored on the intersection of our values and our interests. President Trump’s foreign policy will not be one that puts fear in the minds of oppressive regimes as some had hoped. Dictatorships offend our values, but not necessarily our national interests.” [http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]

So it would seem, with `eyes wide shut’, while the Democrat establishment incumbents and supporters, the liberal-leaning on-screen mainstream media and entertainment industry, and political pundits exhaust their efforts to bring down the man: Donald J. Trump; through his folly, embarrassing tweets, and public rally displays as a bombastic idiot, his Cabinet team is stealthfully implementing the doctrines, through legislative policy, of measured principled realism.

To appreciate, and possibly decide the what, where, why, and how this strategy just might have a foresight beyond most to currently understand, view this informative, video conference presentation given by Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical strategist who specializes in global energy, demographics and security in February, 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0eJK4Avk2M

History has shown; when economies are on the verge of collapse, or significant recession/depression, war becomes a viable option as a diversion for the electorate. Having two war hawks in your War Cabinet in such a period of political turmoil would be advisable. Too, with the 2018 Mid-term elections on the horizon, this would bode well to gain support for a Republican House and Senate win. Trump has two irons in the fire to option his war strategy: Iran and North Korea. Given the complexity of a North Korea war venture, Iran is the most viable target allied by Israel first, and Saudi Arabia as a viable second. Great Britain’s Teresa May would relish a major conflict to divert attention away from the BREXIT fiasco and Angela Merkel, and France’s Macron have their own problems that seek a way out and opportunity to prolong their political careers (said cynically).

So all that said: the future may not be as bright as we may want it, get ready!

Since the 2016 election of Trump, 45th President of the United States, a component to his winning campaign is the allegation that the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), adopted by all participating nations of the United Nations Security Council in 2015, is a poorly negotiated agreement principally for reason that it would cease to curtail Iran from re-instituting its former nuclear weapons development, deemed to have ended as earlier as 2009, in fifteen years from date of its coming into effect.

Now, several months since his inauguration, during which period saw the hiring and firing of several senior members of his cabinet, Trump has strategically or otherwise, surrounded himself with well know Neocons such as John Robert Bolton, an American politician and attorney who is now National Security Advisor of the United States as of April 9, 2018. Bolton served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations and widely known for his hawkish war posturing during the uptake to the attack on Iraq in 2003. And most recently, to replace fired Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, Trump has appointed Michael R. Pompeo, an American politician, lawyer, and former army officer to serve as the 70th United States Secretary of State. Previous to this appointment, he was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The point of this essay is to highlight the political posturing and strategies being put into the public space by the media in preparation for President Trump’s decision to the future of the JCPOA, scheduled for on or before May 12, 2018, however, it is relevant to point out, at the present moment, the Trump presidency, and his administration’s credibility, is being challenged on the following three, widely publicized fronts:

First, domestically, is Special counsel, Robert Mueller’s and F.B.I.’s investigations related to purported Russian interference in his election campaign and more; and, the allegations related to a sexual affair with porn-star Stormy Daniels.

Second is North Korea: it’s leader Kim Jung Un’s highly publicized willingness to meet with Trump to negotiate for the dismantling of its nuclear missile program, to pursue re-unification with the South for the removal of economic stifling sanctions;

Third is Trump’s voiced threat to withdraw from the JCPOA with Iran if it is not renegotiated, to the satisfaction of the United States.

The need for Trump to divert public attention from the Mueller and F.B.I. investigations could suggest heightened emphasis, through media channels such as FOX News and conservative pundits, on the latter two major issues challenging the Trump administration.

Recent coverage of Kim Jung Un’s crossing of the North-South Demilitarized Zone to meet with South Korea’s President Moon Jae-In, in the latter part of April, 2018, is for the short term, de-emphasizing Trump’s role for the present moment, however, the appointment of Mike Pompeo, who has public voiced his discontent, and current mistrust of the North Korean regime’s willingness to dismantle its nuclear program for a lifting of sanctions and possible re-unification, has the potential to put that effort into jeopardy.

This leaves the United States posturing leading up to the self-imposed date of May 12, 2018 for its decision on the Iran deal (JCPOA).

To date, the leaders of all consenting countries to the JCPOA, have stated their continued support for the deal, and Iran’s compliance as demanded. The only dissenter is the United States and, to that end, the forces to make its case, now being front and center.

As early as July, 2017, Bolton tweeted: “Withdrawing from the Iran #NuclearDeal should be a top @realDonaldTrump administration priority.”

Most recently, in a move to discredit the Iranian governments role in the original negotiations, and its current commitment to meet its obligations as detailed by the JCPOA; Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, by way of YouTube video presentation, purports to have secured physical, documentary evidence, captured by Israeli secret services, that undeniably proves Iran lied leading up to the negotiated deal, and continues to deceive participating nations on its intent to reconstitute its nuclear ambitions, if not before the end of the fifteen year limitation.

What should be of concern is the statement that Trump is prone to believing what Netanyahu is making claim to by his presentation even though the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the watchdog to the advancement of nuclear development, has indicated Iran has been, and continues to be, compliant with the agreement contrary to that of the United States.

So, these are the facts as best known, and as conveyed, through the various public media platforms.

What is at stake is the potential for another contrived conflagration instigated by the United States premised upon unfounded, but highly publicized, misinformation, or is it?

The point to be made by this essay is to highlight the different claims being made on this very important issue, and to suggest who might have the most to gain, or lose, by the various, outcome potentials. Certainly, Iran and its Peoples stand to lose the most in much the same way those of Iraq, Libya, and currently Syria and Yemen have lost. But, for the United States, and its supporting allies, and their citizens; may be impacted by an increase in their taxes to pay for the carnage they seem willing to support being imposed on foreign nations’ regimes that are not willing to march to the tune of western governments, or at best, maybe just to serve as a major distraction to events occurring or not, domestically.

To better understand and comprehend the world as we are coming to know it, the reason for what is evolving, one need look at the history to what makes it so; and this comprehensive BBC documentary is a good start to that end:

An Essay written in 2005 anticipated the potential negative outcome for many Americans given the growing, vocal presence of the Conservative Religious Right within the politic of the day.

The premise for the original essay is the offering of an open invitation to move to Canada, to those Americans who were becoming increasingly concerned for the positioning of the political and socially conservative, right-wing, evangelical religious movement to influence the White House and ultimately, the Supreme Court, to amend Constitutional laws in favor of their Bible-driven beliefs.

It would seem that day has finally materialized some twelve years later under the Trump-Pence Administration.

The original essay:

`IN GOD THEY TRUST – NBC with TOM BROKAW (2005-10-23)

If you are a non-believer that is Christian, gay, democrat or liberal in your views and lastly, AMERICAN, Canada has a lot of vacant land available for occupancy whenever you are ready. And from what I saw and heard on this program, though a brief expose of what is gong on in the good old’ US, I would be looking to pack up and move real soon..

The infusion of evangelical religious fervour and the insidious means they employ to establish their faith amongst the many and subsequently the political pressure this puts on the State, the judicial system, it is cause for not only Americans but also, the rest of the world to be concerned.

The evangelical, conservative Christian movement is organized and determined to put their mark on the majority of America in order to shape the future direction of that country. Their coy manner of insisting that they do not have a political agenda, that they do not impose their theology on others is a ruse. They know what their objectives are and precisely how they expect to achieve those goals. And with their ally in the Oval Office – they are on the road to achieve those goals. With the Congress and eventually the Supreme Court weighted in their favour – the implication of this movement will outlive this administration. It is fearful to see and hear American citizens negating any sense of reason or judgement in exercising their right to vote. Regardless of the political aspirations or abilities of a political candidate be they for the presidency, congress or any other arm of the federal government, as long as that individual holds to their same right wing (though they would not label themselves as such), moral Christian values – that is where their vote will be directed. George W Bush is living proof of that commitment

The fear for the balance of Americans in success of this movement is how it translates to the rest of the world’s religious communities the most obvious of these being the Islamic faith who view the events in the United States as a furtherance of the Christian dominance of the world – at their expense. In addition, as has been brutally illustrated to date, they will sacrifice themselves to prevent this from happening.

The rift these events create within the social fabric of American society will have the affect of undermining the united front that up until the unfolding of these events can only serve the enemies of the US – what is the old adage – United we conquer – divided we fall.